and the rate of change is already exceeding anything in the geological record, including past climate changes events associated with widespread extinctions
Like the asteroid impact that marks the end of the Cretacious? That climate change event probably took a fraction of a second to go from a rock in deep space to dinosaur ending fireball.
but for anyone who allows for the possibility of things beyond the physical world our human bodies are constrained to, the Bible may offer insights and illuminations greater than any other book.
Only if you ignore all the other religious books making the same sorts of claims. But having said that, I think "Engines of Creation" would give the Bible a run for its money on the above claim.
At this point nobody in the scientific community is predicting global warming - you don't predict it's going to start raining when you're already getting wet. The evidence is in, GW is real and getting rapidly worse.
How many degrees per decade again? And why is that considered "getting rapidly worse"? Global warming denying is not the only anti-scientific belief system causing waves here. The catastrophic climate change people are another such problem.
2) You can prove them wrong - on scientific turf, not the comments section of a news article - and earn yourself a nobel prize and the undying thanks of millions of concerned citizens
The problem is that 2) requires time. With sufficiently massaged paleoclimate data you can conclude just about anything. But it takes decades to gather high quality satellite data to confirm or falsify the claims made.
More people have been persecuted, hounded, ruined, tortured, burned, murdered, and just exterminated en-masse because of a book called the Bible than any other document in human history including Mein Kampf and Das Capital put together.
The order is Das Capital, then Mein Kampf, then the Bible. Admittedly a large part of that is because there was a lot more people around to die from these other ideologies due to the population growth of the last few centuries.
THERE IS NO WAY ON GODS FUCKING GREEN EARTH THAT ONCE SOMEBODY HAS SOMETHING HAPPEN TO THEM THAT THEY CAN AFFORD THEIR HEALTH.
If they can't afford their health, then who can? Health care is a bottomless pit of need which can suck up any sum of money thrown at it. There has to be limits or that demand will completely break society. I think it quite reasonable that you only get the health care you paid for.
For Christ's sake, at least have the fucking decency to hike up minimum wage the amount needed to pay an average insurance policy.
Minimum wage is zero for being unemployed. If you aren't working, then you're not earning money which can be used to pay an insurance policy.
Under Eisenhower the wealthiest millionaires were taxed in the 90%s
They didn't pay anything near that. I've even seen research that claims that actual taxes paid by the highest income brackets haven't changed much since the end of the Second World War.
and people today complain if you raise above 30%
Why shouldn't they complain? The federal government doesn't do that much for most people. Especially considering that state governments do most of the government services people actually need the most like police and fire fighting services, education, etc.
Pick any one of a number of IP lawsuits or tech mergers, and you can call out a dozen names that have been more influential in the past year, contrasted against what you say Snowden will influence.
Please, carry out this exercise. And we'll explain why you're wrong.
I on the contrary believe in evolution precisely because it is the current best theory. If something comes along that better explains what we observe, then I'll believe that.
You forgot the other class of freeloaders. People who have pre-existing health conditions and expect other people who don't have pre-existing health conditions to pay for their health care. It turns health insurance into pay-as-you-go health care, but it is viable only as long as enough low cost insurees are paying in.
"The Mars Rover" could describe three different successfully deployed rover designs. Now you might not see a problem with three different designs for four rovers total, but that's one of the symptoms of failing to reuse proven technology - lots of designs and few missions.
There's the aspect of having a man-rated craft, a man-rated booster, and a man-rated habitat to deploy once getting there. If these three things aren't met then they can't even launch.
It's worth noting that there's no such thing as man-rated space technology. The man-rating doesn't exist. Nor is there someone to do these man-ratings.
Their plan even states explicitly that they will use existing technology.
When we do space exploration we need to do it the right way or not at all.
I agree that Mars One hasn't shown even a glimmer of feasibility. But you completely miss the point. Space exploration isn't technology development nor is it the only thing we can possibly do in space. And avoiding the use of proven technology is merely an expensive way to fail hard.
When it comes to matters of theology, I've found that it's difficult for most people to have a healthy conversation about the subject of evolution.
So what makes the conversation unhealthy? Zeal and vigor merely indicates you care. That's healthy especially given the debate is about our origins which I think would be important to most people.
But notice that word: BELIEVE. Belief is not scientific. It is, I dare say, RELIGIOUS.
Dare! But there is the matter of what is more compatible with the evidence we see. Scientists didn't come to believe in the theory of evolution by happenstance.
I just don't see the point in discoursing the subject with either parties - they are both quite unlikely to change their viewpoints - and even if they do, you don't win anything for your efforts.
So what I'm getting is that you talked with some people for a short while and for some reason expected them to change just because they had a conversation. But why should they change their views? It's not healthy just to change opinions and beliefs for change's sake.
During the Eisenhower administration the tax rate on the uppermost bracket of incomes was 91%.
It wasn't. There were plenty of loopholes to knock that rate down. For example, one could form a trust and protect their wealth from both income and estate taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
and the rate of change is already exceeding anything in the geological record, including past climate changes events associated with widespread extinctions
Like the asteroid impact that marks the end of the Cretacious? That climate change event probably took a fraction of a second to go from a rock in deep space to dinosaur ending fireball.
but for anyone who allows for the possibility of things beyond the physical world our human bodies are constrained to, the Bible may offer insights and illuminations greater than any other book.
Only if you ignore all the other religious books making the same sorts of claims. But having said that, I think "Engines of Creation" would give the Bible a run for its money on the above claim.
Thumbs might be a new thing, but I bet they always had that middle brow.
Works for forest fires so it's obvious it should work for stupidity.
At this point nobody in the scientific community is predicting global warming - you don't predict it's going to start raining when you're already getting wet. The evidence is in, GW is real and getting rapidly worse.
How many degrees per decade again? And why is that considered "getting rapidly worse"? Global warming denying is not the only anti-scientific belief system causing waves here. The catastrophic climate change people are another such problem.
2) You can prove them wrong - on scientific turf, not the comments section of a news article - and earn yourself a nobel prize and the undying thanks of millions of concerned citizens
The problem is that 2) requires time. With sufficiently massaged paleoclimate data you can conclude just about anything. But it takes decades to gather high quality satellite data to confirm or falsify the claims made.
So, you can't name someone? The rest of us knew that it wasn't possible, but I get that this is how you cope with making mistakes.
More people have been persecuted, hounded, ruined, tortured, burned, murdered, and just exterminated en-masse because of a book called the Bible than any other document in human history including Mein Kampf and Das Capital put together.
The order is Das Capital, then Mein Kampf, then the Bible. Admittedly a large part of that is because there was a lot more people around to die from these other ideologies due to the population growth of the last few centuries.
Right now, on Mars, there is a one-ton six wheeled robot with a laser strapped to it's head.
How many rovers does that make again? Four right? Over forty years of Mars exploration. Low expectations strike again.
Well, and to also sit around comfortably while remotely exploring the next frontier into this decade thanks to the quality of our engineering.
Too bad there's no ambition to go with that engineering.
THERE IS NO WAY ON GODS FUCKING GREEN EARTH THAT ONCE SOMEBODY HAS SOMETHING HAPPEN TO THEM THAT THEY CAN AFFORD THEIR HEALTH.
If they can't afford their health, then who can? Health care is a bottomless pit of need which can suck up any sum of money thrown at it. There has to be limits or that demand will completely break society. I think it quite reasonable that you only get the health care you paid for.
For Christ's sake, at least have the fucking decency to hike up minimum wage the amount needed to pay an average insurance policy.
Minimum wage is zero for being unemployed. If you aren't working, then you're not earning money which can be used to pay an insurance policy.
Under Eisenhower the wealthiest millionaires were taxed in the 90%s
They didn't pay anything near that. I've even seen research that claims that actual taxes paid by the highest income brackets haven't changed much since the end of the Second World War.
and people today complain if you raise above 30%
Why shouldn't they complain? The federal government doesn't do that much for most people. Especially considering that state governments do most of the government services people actually need the most like police and fire fighting services, education, etc.
Pick any one of a number of IP lawsuits or tech mergers, and you can call out a dozen names that have been more influential in the past year, contrasted against what you say Snowden will influence.
Please, carry out this exercise. And we'll explain why you're wrong.
Just because someone isn't upset, doesn't mean that they can't be considered a threat.
I on the contrary believe in evolution precisely because it is the current best theory. If something comes along that better explains what we observe, then I'll believe that.
If you wanted the economy fixed, you should tell the House majority which has prevented it and failed to prosecute those who broke it.
Why go through the motions of impeaching Obama? It won't get past the Senate.
You forgot the other class of freeloaders. People who have pre-existing health conditions and expect other people who don't have pre-existing health conditions to pay for their health care. It turns health insurance into pay-as-you-go health care, but it is viable only as long as enough low cost insurees are paying in.
"The Mars Rover" could describe three different successfully deployed rover designs. Now you might not see a problem with three different designs for four rovers total, but that's one of the symptoms of failing to reuse proven technology - lots of designs and few missions.
There's the aspect of having a man-rated craft, a man-rated booster, and a man-rated habitat to deploy once getting there. If these three things aren't met then they can't even launch.
It's worth noting that there's no such thing as man-rated space technology. The man-rating doesn't exist. Nor is there someone to do these man-ratings.
Their plan even states explicitly that they will use existing technology.
When we do space exploration we need to do it the right way or not at all.
I agree that Mars One hasn't shown even a glimmer of feasibility. But you completely miss the point. Space exploration isn't technology development nor is it the only thing we can possibly do in space. And avoiding the use of proven technology is merely an expensive way to fail hard.
When it comes to matters of theology, I've found that it's difficult for most people to have a healthy conversation about the subject of evolution.
So what makes the conversation unhealthy? Zeal and vigor merely indicates you care. That's healthy especially given the debate is about our origins which I think would be important to most people.
But notice that word: BELIEVE. Belief is not scientific. It is, I dare say, RELIGIOUS.
Dare! But there is the matter of what is more compatible with the evidence we see. Scientists didn't come to believe in the theory of evolution by happenstance.
I just don't see the point in discoursing the subject with either parties - they are both quite unlikely to change their viewpoints - and even if they do, you don't win anything for your efforts.
So what I'm getting is that you talked with some people for a short while and for some reason expected them to change just because they had a conversation. But why should they change their views? It's not healthy just to change opinions and beliefs for change's sake.
Does it take more faith to believe ones existence is the random meaningless act of circumstance or the purpose filled intent of a creator?
Or both or neither. There are four possible states here.
During the Eisenhower administration the tax rate on the uppermost bracket of incomes was 91%.
It wasn't. There were plenty of loopholes to knock that rate down. For example, one could form a trust and protect their wealth from both income and estate taxes.